On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 02:10:59PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> > - a message when installing the package
> Nagware-ish. Every non-free package you install, you have to agree to some
> announcement that this package is non free...
I concur, however it's the lesser of a lot of possible evils.
>From the vote page, http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0006:
Quorum: With 509 developers,; Q=22.56 making a quorum of 68
Miniumum Discussion: Wichert Akkerman can call for vote anytime
after
July 5th.
Forum: Discussion is on the debian-vote list.
Outcome: The winner is the Swi
http://vote.debian.org/ claims there's a vote on swapping the logos
going on, but the ballot sender won't send me a ballot to vote on
it... what gives?
Chris
--
=
|Chris Lawrence| The Linux/m6
The social contract has as the very first item `Debian Will Remain 100%
Free Software'. So we need to do something to make once again clear
to everyone exactly what Debian is and show more clearly what we don't
consider to be free.
Hear, hear!
I. Create a new host, nonfree.deb
On Jun 23, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The ballot will contain the options:
>
> 1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
> 2) create official.debian.org domain
> 3) keep the current situation
>
> This way of holding the vote would tend to split the support for
> change. I worry that 100
Hi,
>>"Robert" == Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 02:10:59PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
>> > - a message when installing the package
>> Nagware-ish. Every non-free package you install, you have to agree to some
>> announcement that this package
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> I thought the intent of the proposal *was* to make non-free software
Chris> harder to find..
This goes against the social contract, IMHO.
Chris> . or at least harder to confuse with main.
Thanks to apt, this
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 11:47:09AM -0700, Mark Ayers wrote:
> I am in favor of breaking out the domain into sub domains.
> RedHat, for other reasons, did it.
>
> Official.Debian.Org
> Contrib.Debian.Org
> Non-Free.Debian.Org
> Even
> Updates.Debian.Org ala RH
And officeupdate.microsoft.com ...
I
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 04:52:48PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> It just makes things messy on the mirrors. I think Jason has tried
> to point this out in the past. I do browse the Debian web site
> (about once a fortnight) at www.debian.org, but I certainly don't FTP
> to ftp.debian.org (too slow
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:40:14AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> Debian uses a single transferable voting method, in which developers
> rank their preferences. Presumably your votes would be 1243 (in order
> of ballot position).
>
> Assuming "no further discussion" appears #1 on the least ballot
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Thanks to apt, this is impossible unless we make apt annoying
> (and hence reduce its utility). I don't think moving it shall make
> much of a difference to people, apart fr5om the annoyance of having
> to change mirror
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 12:15:30AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> http://vote.debian.org/ claims there's a vote on swapping the logos
> going on, but the ballot sender won't send me a ballot to vote on
> it... what gives?
I jumped the gun on the web page. I tried to time it so the web pages
didn'
On Jun 23, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> Debian's counting method is more complicated than that :( We use the
> concord accounting system where an option gets a "point" if more people
> prefer it to some other option... Debian only falls back to STV in case of
> a tie.
I suspect the net effect is the
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:34:55AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> I suspect the net effect is the same, however. (My bad, should have
> re-read the constitution.)
In about 75% of the cases (that I tested), it is...
> The bottom line is that RMS's concerns are addressed by the voting system.
Agree
On Jun 23, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> Debian's counting method is more complicated than that :( We use the
> concord accounting system where an option gets a "point" if more people
> prefer it to some other option... Debian only falls back to STV in case of
> a tie.
A fairly concise explanation of
On Jun 23, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:34:55AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > I suspect the net effect is the same, however. (My bad, should have
> > re-read the constitution.)
> In about 75% of the cases (that I tested), it is...
That low? Wow...
Chris, who smells a
Richard Stallman wrote:
> The social contract has as the very first item `Debian Will Remain 100%
> Free Software'. So we need to do something to make once again clear
> to everyone exactly what Debian is and show more clearly what we don't
> consider to be free.
>
> Hear, hear!
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 01:34:42PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Why contrib ? contrib is perfectly dfsg software, there is no reason not to
> > distribute it the same way as main ?
>
> Because it's useless without non-free.
And it generally has the 'stigma', if you wil
Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Because it's useless without non-free.
>
> Ok, i understand, but still it is DFSG compliant no ? why then
> penalize it and move it away from main into some server that will
> matbe not be mirrored everywhere ?
Why don't we just get rid of the 'contrib' distinction altoget
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 12:30:08AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The ballot will contain the options:
>
> 1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
> 2) create official.debian.org domain
> 3) keep the current situation
>
> This way of holding the vote would tend to split the support
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 07:28:29AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 03:28:23PM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote:
> > [...] There are items in contrib which do not depend on
> > items in Debian's non-free archive, but do instead depend on
> > externally available non-free items. T
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:41:25AM -0500, R. Brock Lynn wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> > > Because it's useless without non-free.
> >
> > Ok, i understand, but still it is DFSG compliant no ? why then
> > penalize it and move it away from main into some server that will
> > matbe not be mirrored
On Jun 23, Giuliano Procida wrote:
> Untrue! (Social Contract section 5 is misleading) You may have always
> treated contrib as "unofficial" but it is often fully supported GPL
> software. Plenty of other people do not share your view. Put another
> way, you may lump contrib with non-free, plenty o
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> I thought the intent of the proposal *was* to make non-free software
> harder to find... or at least harder to confuse with main.
Hmm, I disagree, I think the only intent was to make a very clear distinction
between free and non-free and Debian's commitment to 100% free 'm
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 10:25:04AM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote:
> > > > Because it's useless without non-free.
> > >
> > > Ok, i understand, but still it is DFSG compliant no ? why then
> > > penalize it and move it away from main into some server that will
> > > matbe not be mirrored everywhere
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> > I thinks that's even not clear enough, because the "debian.org" part makes
> > it somehow official again.
> > Personally, I would prefer "unofficial.debian.org".
>
> I like this idea.
>
> > Even those who know nothing about the Debian Social Contract should know
> > what
Previously Richard Stallman wrote:
> This way of holding the vote would tend to split the support for
> change. I worry that 100 people might vote for 1, 100 people might vote
> for 2, while 110 people might vote for 3--and 3 would win.
Our voting system allows voters to vote for multiple options
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 10:19:52AM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote:
> Foo Emulator: used for development of a free OS for platform Foo (I do
> Foo Frontend: used with development versions of free alternatives to
> Foo Client: used to aid development of a free server for Foo (some are
Then all this
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 04:28:49AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
[...]
Hi all, meybe we can consider the numbers of the package in the
contrib and non-free sections. How many contribe package
and non-free package are now on master (I can not verify).
In this way we have an idea of how big is the
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 07:59:07PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Foo Emulator: used for development of a free OS for platform Foo (I do
>
> > Foo Frontend: used with development versions of free alternatives to
>
> > Foo Client: used to aid development of a free server for Foo (some are
>
> T
Giuliano Procida wrote:
> > Why don't we just get rid of the 'contrib' distinction altogether
> > and put it all in main then? Why penalize it like that too?
>
> I nearly suggested this as well in my last mail, however, it would
> really really piss off the people who opposed ICQ clients in main.
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:38:15AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 10:25:04AM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote:
[attribution lost] wrote:
> > > Why don't we just get rid of the 'contrib' distinction altogether
> > > and put it all in main then? Why penalize it like that too?
> >
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:53:56AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 07:59:07PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Foo Emulator: used for development of a free OS for platform Foo (I do
> >
> > > Foo Frontend: used with development versions of free alternatives to
> >
> > > Fo
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:53:56AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
[...]
> Foo Frontend ... Well, how does a Tk frontend for xanim help you make a
> free replacement for xanim?
imho the point is different. Why we penalize a GPL software putting
into the hell of ``nonfree.debian.org'' ?
If we would
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 05:57:10AM -0500, R. Brock Lynn wrote:
>
> and for 'non-us' I guess that's ok, as later on, there may be other restricted
> stuff besides just crypto... who knows...
>
[...]
yes this is a good point, why non-us and not non-iraq ?
also in iraq (for example) there are prob
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Andrea Fanfani wrote:
> imho the point is different. Why we penalize a GPL software putting
> into the hell of ``nonfree.debian.org'' ?
>
> If we would take a sort of Dante's Comedy metaphor, we could compare
> the main part of debian dist with the Dante paradise, the non-free
I lost track of who said what...
> > > And perhaps, the README.Debian should be mandatory to
> > > contain a brief explanation why this package is considered
> > > non-free (often it is obvious, but often it is not,
> > > especially for those new to the world of free software)
>
> > I think this
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:53:56AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Foo Emulator would be in main if it didn't require non-free Foo ROMs to
> make it work at all.
Does it require them? Most of them emulate the hardware like the CPU,
sound and graphics devices, etc. No reason why you couldn't use them
Robert Woodcock wrote:
> Here's an idea:
>
> # apt-get install navigator-smotif-46
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> The following extra packages will be installed:
> netscape-base-46 navigator-base-46
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> navig
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Andrea Fanfani wrote:
> Hi all, meybe we can consider the numbers of the package in the
> contrib and non-free sections. How many contribe package
> and non-free package are now on master (I can not verify).
>
> In this way we have an idea of how big is the % of non-free
>
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > It just makes things messy on the mirrors. I think Jason has tried
> > to point this out in the past. I do browse the Debian web site
> > (about once a fortnight) at www.debian.org, but I certainly don't FTP
> > to ftp.debian.org (too slow).
>
> My
* CL => Chris Lawrence
CL> One very important category of contrib software is omitted:
CL> packages that depend on free software in non-US.
This sort of stuff should go into main, either the part on master,
either that on non-US.
I maintain mailcrypt, which is such a beast, and I'm planning
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:17:50AM -0500, R. Brock Lynn wrote:
> > I. Create a new host, nonfree.debian.org and move non-free and
> > contrib there and ask our mirrors if they can consider also
> > mirroring that.
> That wouldn't be too much of a problem for the mirror admins huh?
>
Another issue on this is finding the location of packages you want/need to make
your system run the way the users want their systems to run. A case in point,
Xfree86 3.3.3.1 for slink. Do we publish on the web page where to find it? Not
that I've seen. Sure, it's there, SOMEWHERE, but it's not
Here's my reasoning:
Nonfree stuff isn't part of Debian(tm), and never can be. The
current scheme allows _only_ Debian developers to create packages for
non-free, which lends an aura of officialness. Take non-free completely
off of the ftp.debian.org (and mirror) system. Create a
userl
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:06:27PM -0400, Will Lowe wrote:
> Here's my reasoning:
>
> Nonfree stuff isn't part of Debian(tm), and never can be. The
> current scheme allows _only_ Debian developers to create packages for
> non-free, which lends an aura of officialness. Take non-free comple
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:06:27PM -0400, Will Lowe wrote:
> > Here's my reasoning:
> >
> > Nonfree stuff isn't part of Debian(tm), and never can be. The
> > current scheme allows _only_ Debian developers to create packages for
> > non-free, wh
> > current scheme allows _only_ Debian developers to create packages for
> > non-free, which lends an aura of officialness. Take non-free completely
> The non-free packages *are* packaged to Debian's high standard and *are*
> managable through the BTS.
My point is:
Is this a Good Thing(
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:36:24PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > The stuff in contrib, IMO, belongs in Main. The GPL says nothing
> > GPL might not.. but the GPL isn't our litmus test. It's the DFSG.
>
> The DFSG is a _licensing_ guildeline and says nothing about functionality.
> The DFSG _
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Will Lowe wrote:
> > > current scheme allows _only_ Debian developers to create packages for
> > > non-free, which lends an aura of officialness. Take non-free completely
> > The non-free packages *are* packaged to Debian's high standard and *are*
> > managable through the
> Clause 5 of the Social Contract is very clear on this:
> Debian's resources -ARE- officially intended for supporting non-free
> software and we DO officially support it's use. So, yes we do support
> non-free software and yes this is what we have been doing.
Whoops, you're right. But if we're o
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> > The issue of what goes into main has always been an issue of the license,
> > not local laws, or the degree to which the product is bug free. Trying to
> > keep contrib packages out of main just because they don't work is bringing
> > in issues not
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:16:24PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> The license is still free, even though the code may "legally" infringe on
> someone's patent "rights".
I could be mistaken here, do we not have stuff in non-free because of
patent issues?
--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me,
Hi,
>>"Darren" == Darren O Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Darren> The difference is more for the casual browser browsing the
Darren> ftp/http trees.
And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away?
manoj
--
Why isn't there a special name for the tops of y
Hi,
This would violate the social contract. People wanting to do
this are free to derive a ``pure'' distribution based on Debian that
does not include anything they find morally objectionable.
manoj
>>"Will" == Will Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Will> Here's my reasoning
Hi,
>>"Will" == Will Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Will> My point is: Is this a Good Thing(tm)?
Will> ... by doing this, we're _directly_supporting_ non-free software. I
Will> suggest that Debian's resources are not officially intended for this
Will> purpose.
Says who? According
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Darren> The difference is more for the casual browser browsing the
> Darren> ftp/http trees.
>
> And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away?
>
that's those debs are not an part of the official dist
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:16:24PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > The license is still free, even though the code may "legally" infringe on
> > someone's patent "rights".
> I could be mistaken here, do we not have stuff in non-free because of
> patent
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:35:24PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Darren> The difference is more for the casual browser browsing the
> > Darren> ftp/http trees.
> >
> > And the non-free appearing in the path is not
> How does the casual browser know that something on a particular server
> that *is* in the debian.org domain isn't really part of debian? Again,
> who's this targeted at--casual users or hard-liners who already know the
> difference?
That's the problem is was (unsuccessfully) trying to get at ear
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 05:54:02PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away?
> > >
> >
> > that's those debs are not an part of the official distribution? No, it's
> > not.
>
> Would making them available as
> ftp.debian.org/debian
CALL FOR VOTES
I propose that we swap the official and open-use versions of the new Debian
logo. As you will recall, the open use version is currently the genie
bottle with a "solid" swirl above the mouth of the bottle, whereas the
official version is a "brushed" swirl alone.
My reasoning is thi
CALL FOR VOTES
(1 of 2)
Votes must be received by July 7, 1999 15:59:59 -8
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. For
voting questions only contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Details about the
proposal can be found in
63 matches
Mail list logo
